Assessment of Transportation Performance: A Network Structure

  • Ming-Miin YuEmail author
  • Li-Hsueh Chen
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 238)


Performance measurement is a popular activity of organizations in the transportation sector. Various studies on the performance of transportation organizations with the utilization of data envelopment analysis models have been common. However, based on the unstorable characteristics of transportation services, conventional data envelopment analysis models are not suitable, and then network data envelopment analysis models are proposed. This chapter is dedicated to describe the network operational structure of transportation organizations and the relative network data envelopment analysis model. In order to be closer to real operational situations, four operational characteristics, which are route-based performance evaluation, environmental factors, undesirable outputs, multi-activity framework, are discussed and incorporated into the network data envelopment analysis model, respectively.


Transportation Network DEA Route-based performance evaluation Environmental factors Undesirable outputs Multi-activity framework 


  1. Adler N, Golany B (2001) Evaluation of deregulated airline networks using data envelopment analysis combined with principal component analysis with an application to Western Europe. Eur J Oper Res 132:260–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banker RD, Morey R (1986) Efficiency analysis for exogenously fixed inputs and outputs. Oper Res 34:513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beasley JE (1995) Determining teaching and research efficiencies. J Oper Res Soc 46:441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beasley JE (2003) Allocating fixed costs and resources via data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 147:198–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boame AK (2004) The technical efficiency of Canadian urban transit systems. Transp Res Part E 40:401–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borger BD, Kerstens K, Costa A (2002) Public transit performance: what does one learn from frontier studies? Transp Rev 22(1):1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiou YC, Chen YH (2006) Route-based performance evaluation of Taiwanese domestic airlines using data envelopment analysis. Transp Res E 42:116–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiou YC, Lan LW, Yen BTH (2012) Route-based data envelopment analysis models. Transp Res E 48:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chu X, Fielding GJ, Lamar BW (1992) Measuring transit performance using data envelopment analysis. Transp Res A 26(3):223–230Google Scholar
  10. Chung YH, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manage 51:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook WD, Hababou M, Tuenter HJH (2000) Multicomponent efficiency measurement and shared inputs in data envelopment analysis: an application to sales and service performance in bank branches. J Prod Anal 14:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook WD, Kress M (1999) Characterizing an equitable allocation of shared costs: a DEA approach. Eur J Oper Res 199:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowie J (2002) Acquistion, efficiency and scale economies: an analysis of the British bus industry. Transport Rev 22(2):147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowie J, Asenova D (1999) Organization form, scale effects and efficiency in British bus industry. Transportation 26:231–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK, Pasurka C (1989) Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach. Rev Econ Stat 71:90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Färe R, Grosskopf S (1996) Productivity and intermediate products: a frontier approach. Econ Lett 50:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Färe R, Grosskopf S (2000) Network DEA. Socio Econ Plan Sci 34:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Weber W (1997) The effect of risk-based capital requirement on profit efficiency in banking. Discussion Paper Series, Department of Economics, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, pp 97–112Google Scholar
  19. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Zaim O (2002) Hyperbolic efficiency and return to the dollar. Eur J Oper Res 131:671–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fielding GJ, Babitsky TT, Brenner ME (1985) Performance evaluation for bus transit. Transp Res 19(1):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fielding G (1992) Transit performance evaluation in the U.S.A. Transp Res A 26(6):483–491Google Scholar
  22. Graham DJ (2008) Productivity and efficiency in urban railways: parametric and non-parametric estimates. Transp Res E 44:84–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golany B, Phillips FY, Rousseau JJ (1993) Models for improved effectiveness based on DEA efficiency results. IIE Trans 25:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Golany B, Roll Y (1989) An application procedure for DEA. OMEGA Int J Manage Sci 17:237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Golany B, Tamir E (1995) Evaluation efficiency-effectiveness-equality trade-offs: a data envelopment analysis approach. Manage Sci 41:1172–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hensher AA (1992) Total factor productivity growth and endogenous demand: establishing a benchmark index for the selection of operational performance measures in public bus firms. Transp Res B 26(6):435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karlaftis MG (2003) Investigating transit production and performance: a programming approach. Transp Res A 37:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karlaftis MG (2004) A DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems. Eur J Oper Res 152(2):354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerstens K (1996) Technical efficiency measurement and explanation of French urban transit companies. Transp Res A 30(6):431–452Google Scholar
  30. Lan LW, Lin ETJ (2003) Technical efficiency and service effectiveness for the railway industry: DEA approaches. J East Asia Soc Transp Stud 5:2932–2947Google Scholar
  31. Lan LW, Lin ETJ (2005) Measuring railway performance with adjustment of environmental effects, data noise and slacks. Transportmetrica 1:161–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee D (1989) Transit cost and performance measurement. Transp Res A 9:147–170Google Scholar
  33. Lin ETJ, Lan LW, Hsu CST (2010) Assessing the on-road route efficiency for an air-express courier. J Adv Transport 44:256–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luenberger DG (1992) Benefit functions and duality. J Math Econ 21:461–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackie P, Nash C (1982) Efficiency and performance indicators: the case of the bus industry. Public Money Manage 3:41–44Google Scholar
  36. Mar Molinero C (1996) On the joint determination of efficiencies in a data envelopment analysis context. J Oper Res Soc 47:1273–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mar Molinero C, Tsai PF (1997) Some mathematical properties of a DEA model for the joint determination of efficiencies. J Oper Res Soc 48:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McMullen BS, Noh DW (2007) Accounting for emissions in the measurement of transit agency efficiency: a directional distance function approach. Transp Res D 12:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrell P, Lu CHY (2000) Aircraft noise social cost and charge mechanisms—a case study of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Transp Res D 5:305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nolan JF, Ritchie PC, Rowcroft JE (2001) Measuring efficiency in the public sector using nonparametric estimators: a study of transit agencies in the USA. Appl Econ 33:913–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nolan JF, Ritchie PC, Rowcroft JE (2002) Identifying and measuring public policy goals: ISTEA and the US bus transit industry. J Econ Behav Organ 48:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oben K (1994) The economic cost of subsidy-induced technical inefficiency. Int J Transport Econ 21(1):3–20Google Scholar
  43. Sheth C, Triantis K, Teodorovic D (2007) Performance evaluation of bus routes: a provider and passenger perspective. Transp Res E 43:453–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Syrjanen MJ (2004) Non-discrectionary and discrectionary factors and scale in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 158:20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thanassoulis E (1996) A data envelopment analysis approach to clustering operating units for resource allocation purposes. OMEGA Int J Manage Sci 24:463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thanassoulis E, Boussofiane A, Dyson RG (1996) A comparison of data envelopment analysis and ratio analysis as tools for performance assessment. OMEGA Int J Manage Sci 24(3):229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tofallis C (1997) Input efficiency profiling: an application to airlines. Comput Oper Res 24(3):253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tomazinis AR (1975) Productivity, efficiency, and quality in urban transportation systems. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsai PF, Mar Molinero C (1998) The joint determination of efficiencies in DEA: an application to the UK health service. Discussion Paper, Department of Management, University of SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  50. Tsai PF, Mar Molinero C (2002) A variable returns to scale data envelopment analysis model for the joint determination of efficiencies with an example of the UK health service. Eur J Oper Res 31:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tulkens H (1993) On FDH, efficiency analysis: some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit. J Prod Anal 4:183–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Viton P (1998) Changes in multi-mode bus transit efficiency, 1988–1992. Transportation 2:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yu MM (2007) Productivity change and the effects of enhancement of mass transportation program on the bus transit system in Taiwan. Transport Rev 29(5):383–407Google Scholar
  54. Yu MM, Chen PC (2011) Measuring air routes performance using a fractional network data envelopment analysis model. Cent Eur J Oper Res 19(1):81–98Google Scholar
  55. Yu MM, Fan CK (2006) Measuring the cost effectiveness of multimode bus transit in the presence of accident risks. Transp Plan Techn 29(5):383–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yu MM, Fan CK (2009) Measuring the performance of multimode bus transit: a mixed structure network DEA model. Transp Res E 45:501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Transportation ScienceNational Taiwan Ocean UniversityKeelungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations